About your Search

20120916
20120916
STATION
CNN 2
CNNW 2
CSPAN2 2
CSPAN 1
KNTV (NBC) 1
KPIX (CBS) 1
KTVU (FOX) 1
MSNBC 1
MSNBCW 1
WBAL (NBC) 1
WBFF (FOX) 1
WRC (NBC) 1
WTTG 1
WUSA (CBS) 1
( more )
LANGUAGE
English 29
Search Results 0 to 28 of about 29 (some duplicates have been removed)
of 20% of iran's call for sanctions, the united states there is a problem that iran to want to negotiate for a position which has changed -- you talk about 20% -- they want sanctions to be lifted with them stopping 20%. the question is they are enriching. we said their right to enrich should be recognized and that would negate all the u.n. sanctions. the nuclear issue stems from u.n. security council issues. within the margins of this issue, there is room to change going forward. i think we may find that it is constrained by the fact that israel is still there. israel is not about to let go of its concerns. i think there has been a lack of dialogue. it would be good if the two sides could sit down together. they could start with this temple and hold discussions and feel of how each side can help each other. my advice for the u.s. diplomats would be to sit with them and say we are not going to talk about the nuclear issue, how is your family. there is the fact of just discussing. on the other side, there is the problem that it is not clear what the endgame is. we're calling on iran to sus
towards the united states and its citizens. >> schieffer: was this a long-planned attack, as far as you know. what do you know about that? >> the way this perpetrators acted, moved, and their choosing specific date for this so-called demonstration, i think we have no-- this leaves us with no doubt that this was preplanned, predetermined. >> schieffer: and you believe this was the work of al qaeda and you believe that it was led by foreigners. is that what you're telling us? >> it was plans definitely, was planned by forers, by people who entered the country a few months ago, and they were planning this criminal act since their arrival. >> schieffer: mr. president, is it safe for americans there now? >> the security situation is-- is difficult, not only for americans. even for libbians themselves. we don't know what are the real intentions. of these perpetrators. how they will react. but there is no specific particular concern, danger for americans or any other foreigners. but the situation is not easy to keep stability. yes >> mr. president, will it be safe for the f.b.i. investigators
the long-term. despite the bumpy path and the disturbing images, it's in the united states fundamental interest that people have the ability to choose their own governments, that the governments be democratic and free. that's in our long-term best interest. we need to reinforce that. >> we are in the middle of a heated presidential campaign. there are different foreign policy visions. that's why we wanted to dedicate the hour today to understand these different views. mitt romney spoke out this week, criticizing the administration, talking about whether the united states was apologizing for some of the initial response to this. these were his comments this week. >> the administration was wrong to stand by a statement sympathizing with those who had breached our embassy in egypt instead of condemning their actions. i think it's a terrible course for america to stand in apology for our values. >> our embassies did not stand up for free speech in this initial response to this violence. and the republican charge is that it's weakness on the part of this administration that invites this kin
, criticizing the administration, talking about whether the united states was apologizing for some of the initial response to this. these were his comments this week. >> the administration was wrong to stand by a statement sympathizing with those who had breached our embassy in egypt instead of condemning their actions. i think it's a terrible course for america to stand in apology for our values. >> our embassies did not stand up for free speech in this initial response to this violence. and the republican charge is that it's weakness on the part of this administration that invites this kind of chaos that the administration has not been tough enough on radical extremists that are beginning to take root in these countries. how do you respond to that? >> first of all, i think the american people and certainly our diplomats and development experts putting their lives on the line every day around the world expect from our leadership unity in times of challenge. and strong, steady, steadfast leadership of the sort that president obama has been providing. with respect to this, i think,
. >> the united states will not allow iran to acquire a nuclear weapon. we'll do what it takes to prevent that from happening. all options remain on the table. the president has been very clear and that includes the military option. >> shannon: our ambassador to the united nations says the u.s. will stand with israel and do what it takes to stop oran from developing a nuclear weapon, as israeli prime minister netanyahu says iran is 7 to 8 months away from being able to build a nuclear bomb and demands that the united states give a red line to iran. we start with peter doos gee senator john mechanic cane said an hour and-a-half that he thinks the united states is sing exactly the wrong main to the israelis about whether or not we will have their back, if iran gets closer to building a nuclear weapon. >> we keep tells the israelis not to attack, shouldn't we be telling the iranians that that we are with israel and they should back down. >> reporter: the u.s. bamdass dorto the u.n. says that the united states will do whatever it takes to prevent iran from acquiring the nuclear weapon and the
before them, and that's something i think we should discuss in the united states. >> let me read you something i know you're probably quite familiar with. for our viewers, something the president has said repeatedly. this he said at the beginning of the year. as president of the united states i don't bluff. i think both the iranian and the israeli governments recognize that when the united states says it is unacceptable for iran to have a nuclear weapon, we mean what we say. do you disagree with that? >> i think that when he says that implicitly is that he will stop them before they have a nuclear weapon, which means they'll draw red lines. i think it's important to communicate it. i wouldn't bet -- i wouldn't bet the security of the world and my own country's future from a country that threatens our annihilation and murders civilians en masse in syria and brutalizes its own people. i wouldn't bet the future on intelligence for simple reasons. american intelligence and israeli intelligence that cooperate together. that wonderful success about saving lives and alerting the people, and
is united states gets to meet with whomever they want to meet with. everybody is requesting to meet you. it's a silly argument we didn't get a formal request to meet in new york and we're going miss each other in washington. if you want the to meet with the israelis, you want to meet with the pakistanis you get to meet with them. >> jon: is the media defending the president on this, kirsten? >> it depends on who you talk to. i think the administration is maintaining they didn't get a request. you know, it's i defer to judy on this who told me they didn't but the question has to be raised what exactly is the obama administration supposed to do. are they supposed to agree to go to war with iran. that is conversation that needs to be had but it's a tit-for-tat what are we talking about here. >> i think the subject is pretty clear, joe cline indicated one view, he called netanyahu's statement outrageous and disgusting. there is lot of disgust going around the capitol because he dared to interject himself into american politics. the obama line is going to be and trying to draw news a war. that i
and indirect fire. for the united states government to simply say it was a spontaneous acted flies in the face of the facts. >> gregg: leland vittert is live in cairo. what is the latest in libya? >> reporter: right now the libyan president is talking about these attacks. he said he wouldn't be surprised if they were preplanned and go through a list of reasons he thinks this has a very sophisticated planning system rather than just spontaneous protests which then turned into attacks. we'll go through what he said. he thought because it happened on 9/11, that led to the idea there was some significance or symbolism for one of these groups that was in some way affiliated. number two, how heavily armed the attackers were. the way they used direct fire and indirect fire as the congressman talked about as they went through the u.s. consulate building. last point, an interesting fact there was really two attacks. that was a follow on attack at the safe house that was used by the con sue lalt officials that these groups knew about. not only did they attack the consulate but attacked the safe house an
. instead of condemning their actions. it's never too early for the united states government to condemn attacks on americans, and to defend our values. and the white house distanced itself last night from the the statement, saying it wasn't cleared by washington. and reflects the mixed signals they're sending to the world. >> the president also faced the media on wednesday. >> the united states condemns in the strongest terms its outrageous and shocking attacks and working with the government of libya to secure our diplomates and to increase our security at places around the world. >> an extremely abbreviated time line, the question for us here on news watch, how did the media react or fail to react to the news and the real issues surrounding these events. let's first go to fox news correspondent shannon bream for more. >> late tuesday, mitt romney released a statement calling the initial response to the attacks in egypt disgraceful saying they appeared to quote, sympathize with those who waged attacks and that original response came in the the form of an embassy statement which secreta
's policies. let's watch. >> this is not a case of protests directed at the united states at large or at u.s. policy. this is in response to a video that is offensive. >> chris: you don't really believe that? >> chris, absolutely i believe that. in fact, it is the case. we had the evolution of the arab spring over the last many months but what sparked the recent violence was the airing on the internet of a very hateful very offensive video that has offended many people around the world. now, our strong view is that there is no excuse for violence. it is reprehensible and never justified but in fact there have been those in various parts of the world who have reacted with violence. their governments have increasingly and effectively responded and protected our facilities and condemned the violence and this outrageous response to what is an offensive individual yo video. there is no question what we have seen in the past with satanic verses and the cartoon of the prophet muhammad there have been such things that have sparked outrage and anger and this has been the proximate cause. >> chris:
over an anti-muslim film produced in the united states. >>> we could soon learn whether chicago school teachers will be back on the job tomorrow. they are expected to voted to approve a proposed contract deal. union leaders and school officials are trying to finalize that agreement. it would give teachers a raise but require tougher evaluations. teachers walked off the job leaving 350,000 students in limbo. i'm gregg jarrett. now back to fox news watch. we'll see you at the top of the hour on american election headquarters. >>> wait there is still time. i say wait for what? >> wait until when? those international community that refuse to put red lines before iran don't have a moral right to place a red light before islam. >> jon: israeli prime minister benjamin netanyahu striking back against the white house and those unwilling to issue an ultimatum to iran. once again, judy miller. monica crowley. jim pinkerton, contributing editor of the american conservative magazine. kirsten powers and richard grenell that served as press spokesman to the last four ambassadors to the u.n. rick to y
to be the standard security in high risk consuls and embassies that the united states has around the world and that includes no low refile armored vehicles, the vehicles that have the tires that will continue to operate even if they're shot out. and other security measures were not there on the ground. general jack keane commented on the security that was missing here on fox. >> there's been a pattern of attacks all through the summer. so we have a pat he tern of specific aggressive attacks and finally, our consulate is attacked. now, that's a movement that's doing that and that is coordinated. i don't think any film, even 9/11 maybe the day they chose to do it because of its significance, but that's certainly people who are out of power, there are moderates in power in libya, they want it undermine that government and foreign powers assisting that government are the target. common sense will tell you that our security for that ambassador and that consulate was totally inadequate. and after we do that assessment and we're putting the proper security in place, rest assured whatever it looks
strikes against the united states. .. >> now you've got in close proximity, hundreds of miles away in some cases, with supersonic jets, in bases that may be vulnerable, small countries where even a small number of nuclear weapons can obliterate them. there was no hard line in 1962, that was bad enough, but when the soviets wanted to send a message to moscow, they gave it to western union and hoped the kid didn't stop to see his girlfriend on the way to the office. [laughter] it was very much a catcher's catch can, and if you have four or five people with nuclear weapons, all worried, no mar gyp for error, it's scary to say the least. ultimately, the only resolution is to stop iran from getting nuclear weapons, and a rev -- revolutionary state does not honor, and you need regime change brought about from within, get positive regime change, but the lesson out of this,ed broader lesson is revolutionary power, you can't negotiate away revolutionary power position. you have to defeat them. in 1962, though, we saw the consequence of miscalculation, and you can easily have one here so that war ma
of law. >> host: you spoke about day and you criticize the united states, particularly in this area in the book for having what you call a reflexive reaction against any palestinian use of united nations. utilization of the united nations. do you think america is standing in the way of a broader peace effort in the middle east? >> guest: i cannot say that america -- i do say america's standing in the way. what i can say is that it will require a sustained and determined effort by the u.s., working with some of the countries in the region, and europe to bring about peace in the region. it has not been sustained. in fact, i'm not sure i can say there is a peace process today. and i think the u.s. has such a pivotal role to play. and both parties look to u.s. leadership. there were times when you look to see if one had gotten very close. when president putin was trying to get the solution, working at night, on the point it seemed very close. but since then we haven't been that close, and there hasn't been a real effort to bring the parties together. and there are people who are now beg
Search Results 0 to 28 of about 29 (some duplicates have been removed)

Terms of Use (31 Dec 2014)